This is a text I refer to, more or less explicitly, on a regular basis (from the NRSV this time)

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren?
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Why is this a favourite passage?
The short answer is that it is a key text preventing ‘faith’ from turning into an idol. A faith which does not bear fruit in good work is a meaningless faith – practice gives the words their sense, to use Wittgenstein’s pithy aphorism. So often religious debate gets tangled up in words when ultimately it is not the words that are important. Nor, ultimately, is it a question of beliefs about matters of fact – even the demons believe! – but only of beliefs which guide our actions. A belief which has no consequence for how we live is completely irrelevant, it is simply decoration upon our mental furniture. Verse 24 is a particularly entertaining one to quote when in discussion with extreme Protestants! (It is why Luther wanted this taken out of the Bible, and called it an ‘Epistle of Straw’.)

Text from the New Living Translation

25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
27 The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”
29 The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus replied with a story: “A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.
31 “By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by.
32 A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.
33 “Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.
34 Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him.
35 The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’
36 “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked.
37 The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

Why is this a favourite passage?
It’s quite a familiar passage, but what I want to draw out are two points.

The first is to note that Jesus doesn’t challenge the grammar of the request, rather he accepts it and builds on it. In other words, Jesus accepts that salvation is a doing (or, it necessarily involves a doing) and the notion of ‘belief’ isn’t raised. Jesus could have said, in response to the initial question, something like ‘believe in me as your personal Lord and Saviour’ – but he doesn’t, and I find that both significant and reassuring.

The second point to emphasise is that the story isn’t really about reaching beyond ethnic boundaries, it’s about abandoning religious boundaries. The Priest and the Temple Assistant are both following the regulations for their conduct, because if they were to help the wounded man then they would then be rendered unclean and unfit for their religious duties. Whereas the Samaritan – off the scale in terms of being religiously ‘unrighteous’ – is the one who actually does the Father’s will by showing mercy and compassion.

So: a key text for me.

More manifesto material:

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Why is this a favourite passage?
Well, the theme of ‘children of God’ is a major one for me, and will be reflected here in due course, but the key to this passage for me comes in two things: first, the identity of a Christian is found through their faith and baptism (leaving aside the link between those things for another day). Secondly, this identity supersedes all other identities; here, in particular, it is made explicit that this new identity overcomes previous divisions based upon gender, race and economic status. Christians are called to form a new community, based around our faith and baptism. To place a criterion of identity above that of baptism is, effectively, to excommunicate. This is just one of the reasons why I have great trouble with much of the homophobic criticism coming out of places like GAFCON – their entire activity is premised on a rejection of baptised brothers and sisters – they assume their conclusion before the intra-family dialogue can begin. Similarly, the rejection of mainstream baptismal practices by a small minority of churches (eg in favour of some sort of mental-assent theory of faith) destroys the foundation of Christian unity. It is also where my acceptance of just-war theory has undergone the biggest modification since I started writing this blog – I’m not sure it is ever legitimate (in Christian terms) for one Christian to kill another. The ramifications of that I’m still exploring!

For those who have faith in Christ, who have been baptised into the Body, their sense of identity as Christians trumps all other claims. This is radically important.